A New Calendar For Voting

May 07, 2000

There's something to be said for choosing presidential nominees in smoke-filled rooms, for allowing political parties to be political parties, allowing party leaders to choose their best candidates and present them to the public. That instills party discipline, and the ultimate decision still rests with the voters.

In modern politics, though, voters, at least some voters, have a more direct say through presidential primaries. This is supposed to be good, more representative of public thinking.

But how good is it when Democrats can infiltrate Republican primaries, and vice versa, trying to cause mischief? How representative is it when the selection process is all but concluded, as it was this year, before people in more than half the states have a chance to vote?

As long as the U.S. is going to have party nominations decided largely by popular vote, a little tweaking to get more votes to count is a reasonable idea.

This shouldn't be a relentless pursuit of a perfect turnout. Perfection would be the 98 percent turnout in the last balloting in Cuba, though there was nary a cliff-hanger there. U.S. elections are open, free and quirky, and all three attributes are to be admired.

Some Republican Party leaders have suggested a new primary election calendar that has a lot to like.

Primaries would be held in four batches. Twelve small states, the territories and the District of Columbia would vote the first Tuesday in March. Another 13 states, more populous, would vote one month later. A third batch of larger states would vote the first week in May, and the largest states would go to the polls on the first Tuesday in June.

This presents some potential problems. No state with a sizable minority population would be heard from until the second round. There is no provision for the desires of Iowa and New Hampshire to be first. Tradition being tradition, there's something to be said for accommodating them. As well, launching 13 states on the first day might end the retail, living-room-to-living-room nature of the Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns, one of the few charming aspects of modern American politics.

There are plenty of logistical hurdles. The various states would have to agree to abide by the calendar. Republicans and Democrats would have to agree on a calendar at a time when it seems they can agree on nothing but their mutual loathing. The proposal, though, deserves a hearing this summer at the Republican Convention, and due consideration by the Democrats.

Who knows, maybe they could hammer it all out in a room filled with smoke, just for old times' sake.